If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

I can't speak for Colin but, I did not mean there was any impact, it's the nature of what Schwartz saw.

His claim does not help the coroner in his duty to determine the 'who (she was)', the 'where', 'when' or 'how', the victim met her death.

What Schwartz saw may be better used at a future trail in establishing a timeline, and in the defense of an accused.

OK thanks wick
I thought you and Bridewell where saying the police were somehow responsible for him not being at the inquest because they thought it might be detrimental to any later trial.

but im sticking to my guns-he would have been important and should have been called to the inquest, especially considering the other types of witnesses who were called. He absolutely would have been pertinent as he can help establish TOD and the verdict.

why he wasn't called is another question. I remember Stewart Evans a while back mentioning he thought he knew why, but im not sure he ever gave his reason.

"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe

"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline

Comment

Keep in mind that even if an interpreter had been available at the inquest there remains the basic problem that Schwartz, not being an English speaker, could not have given any evidence of what was being spoken between Liz and the B.S. man.

Comment

The assumption has been that the man and woman she saw in Dorset Street were walking ahead of her and she was behind them. What if they were actually walking towards her? She said they were further on from her position but nothing to suggest which direction they were walking. If they were the other side of the entrance to Miller's Court then she didn't necessarily either follow them or pass them as she went into the passage, which would also explain her saying that there was no-one in the court. The couple either turned into the passage after Sarah or they passed it altogether and carried on down Dorset Street toward Commercial Street.

She had already passed Britannia Man before turning into Dorset Street.

Hutchinson said he watched Astrachan man with Mary Kelly while stood by the lamp outside the Queen's Head pub. Prior to this he said Astrachan man approached Mary from the opposite direction she was walking, which was toward Thrawl Street. Hutchinson had already had his exchange with Mary and had parted company to continue his walk up Commercial Street. This means Astrachan came along behind Hutchinson.

Hutchinson then watches Astrachan and Mary's and partly hears their conversation, but at no point does he say when he moved from the corner of Flower and Dean Street to the Queen's Head pub. If he simply carried on to the Queen's Head after parting from Mary, his back would have been turned away from her meeting Astrachan. For him to see Astrachan approach, tap Mary on the shoulder and see him putting his hand around her Hutchinson must have stopped to watch Mary walk toward Thrawl Street before Astrachan came along. He did not initially resume his walk up Commercial Street but at some point goes from closely observing Mary and Astrachan from the corner of Flower and Dean to then walk away and then stop at the Queen's Head to watch Astrachan from some distance away. Mary and Astrachan then pass him, so Hutchinson takes a closer look before following them into Dorset Street. Hutchinson makes no mention of Mary being drunk.

Could Sarah Lewis have actually seen Hutchinson talking to Mary on her way to Dorset Street as she says she saw the man talking with a woman near The Britannia, not actually outside or by it? Or maybe the woman wasn't Mary Kelly and he never saw her at all that night. Is it possible Hutchinson shadowed Sarah Lewis's statement to place himself further down the road and slightly later to discount him being Britannia Man, and therefore also discount him from being the Bethnal Green botherer, as Lewis identifies them as being one and the same?

Comment

OK thanks wick
I thought you and Bridewell where saying the police were somehow responsible for him not being at the inquest because they thought it might be detrimental to any later trial.

Hi Abby.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse anyone. I thought the last sentence of Bridewell's post was relevant to this enigma.
My understanding of Swanson's notes was that he is looking at the witnesses from the point of view of a criminal trial.
So, I do not think his opinion should conflict with the coroner, nor do I think he disagrees with the coroner's choice.
These are two different situations.

Comment

Hi Abby.
His claim does not help the coroner in his duty to determine the 'who (she was)', the 'where', 'when' or 'how', the victim met her death.

I am going to have to disagree with you Wick.
Who - Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen.
Where - having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.
When - 12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour.
How - The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly.
Yes the how doesn't show a murder but it clearly shows at the very least an altercation with someone and a woman who was found dead 15 mins later.
Regards Darryl

Comment

I am going to have to disagree with you Wick.
Who - Upon being taken to the Mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen.
Where - having got as far as the gateway where the murder was committed, he saw a man stop and speak to a woman, who was standing in the gateway.
When - 12.45 a.m. 30th. Israel Schwartz of 22 Helen Street, Backchurch Lane, stated that at this hour.
How - The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly.
Yes the how doesn't show a murder but it clearly shows at the very least an altercation with someone and a woman who was found dead 15 mins later.
Regards Darryl

The "When" refers to the time of death, not when she was seen by the witness.

How - The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but he turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times, but not loudly.

"How" means, how she met her death. Stride bled to death due to laceration of the carotid artery. Schwartz did not see Stride attacked with a knife, so he cannot provide the "how".

So Schwartz cannot provide the Who, Where, When or How.

Even in the late 19th century the police will not charge a man with murder because he was seen pushing a woman to the ground.
From a legal point of view Schwartz contributed nothing of value for an inquest.
However, as Schwartz could identify the victim & presumably the attacker, what he saw may be of value if someone is eventually charged with her murder.
Therefore, Swanson will see him as a believable witness, but the Coroner cannot use his evidence.

This is one of my points Trevor. If Schwartz was called to the inquest it would have allowed the coroner to question Brown's evidence and yet he seems to accept it, especially the timing part.
It certainly would have helped clear some of the confusion up.
Regards Darryl

Comment

The "Who" can only be addressed by a witness identifying the victim by name.
('Who' means, "who is the victim?")

Stride is associated with the gateway by Diemshutz.

The "When" refers to the time of death, not when she was seen by the witness.

"How" means, how she met her death. Stride bled to death due to laceration of the carotid artery. Schwartz did not see Stride attacked with a knife, so he cannot provide the "how".

So Schwartz cannot provide the Who, Where, When or How.

Even in the late 19th century the police will not charge a man with murder because he was seen pushing a woman to the ground.
From a legal point of view Schwartz contributed nothing of value for an inquest.
However, as Schwartz could identify the victim & presumably the attacker, what he saw may be of value if someone is eventually charged with her murder.
Therefore, Swanson will see him as a believable witness, but the Coroner cannot use his evidence.

Wick you say all this yet Marshall and Brown where both called and they help even less than Schwartz with the who, when etc
So why call them and not Schwartz?
Maybe it was to help with a possible ID of people who Liz was seen with earlier and to help the police with her movements that night. Does Schwartz not help with that?
Wick you say that the coroner cannot use his evidence in case what he saw may be of value in a future investigation? But the cat was already out of the bag, with his interview with The Star. Not only that but his statement differs wildly from his police one. Calling him to the inquest would surely clear some of these ambiguities up. And we have the problem with pipeman. Social media where the newspapers in 1888. Schwartz giving his evidence early on before the adjournment, especially his police statement alluding that pipeman was just an innocent witness and not an accomplice as it alludes to in the Star would have encouraged this vitally important witness to come forward.
Finally for what it is worth I don't believe broad shoulders was Jack.
Regards Darryl

Comment

This is one of my points Trevor. If Schwartz was called to the inquest it would have allowed the coroner to question Brown's evidence and yet he seems to accept it, especially the timing part.
It certainly would have helped clear some of the confusion up.
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl
When I say that the identification made by Brown and Schwartz is unsfafe, just to clarify I was referring to the identification made at the mortuary, that Stride was specifically identified as being the woman they both refer to in their statements.

Comment

Wick you say all this yet Marshall and Brown where both called and they help even less than Schwartz with the who, when etc.

Hi Darryl. I can't justify every decision Baxter made, but I notice Baxter (as opposed to Macdonald) seemed to want to call a succession of witnesses to establish a timeline. I only wish Macdonald had been so thorough.

Wick you say that the coroner cannot use his evidence in case what he saw may be of value in a future investigation?

I didn't say "in case of", the same witness can appear at an inquest and a trial. What I'm saying is Baxter is not investigating a murder, that's Swanson's dept.

......with his interview with The Star. Not only that but his statement differs wildly from his police one.

The police will have been well aware of what he told the press, but they are only concerned with his police statement.
The police didn't have a wholesome view of the press in general and their liberal use of the facts.

Calling him to the inquest would surely clear some of these ambiguities up.

True, but does it really impact the 'who', 'where', 'when' & 'how' concerning the aim of an inquest?

.....And we have the problem with pipeman. Social media where the newspapers in 1888. Schwartz giving his evidence early on before the adjournment, especially his police statement alluding that pipeman was just an innocent witness and not an accomplice as it alludes to in the Star would have encouraged this vitally important witness to come forward.
Finally for what it is worth I don't believe broad shoulders was Jack.
Regards Darryl

Schwartz seemed to have gone to police on the Sunday evening, so their investigation was already under way by the time the press interviewed Schwartz (the next day?).
The Star even tagged this sentence on to the end of their story.
The police have arrested one man answering the description the Hungarian furnishes. This prisoner has not been charged, but is held for inquiries to be made. The truth of the man's statement is not wholly accepted.

The police may already have known the truth of the encounter (whether Pipeman was a threat or witness).

Comment

Schwartz was not there when Stride was killed, so he couldn't help with where, when or how she met her death.

He didn't know her, so he couldn't help to identify her as Stride.

The difference between Schwartz and other witnesses who did attend the inquest is that he saw a potential and likely suspect, who also saw him and knew he had witnessed an altercation with the victim shortly before she was found dead. What Schwartz couldn't do at an inquest was to comment on whether this man went on to kill the woman, or left her alive for someone else to kill.

As Schwartz could not help with the who, where, when or how, might it make sense if he wasn't called because a) his testimony was simply not required to establish what needed to be established; b) it would have been inappropriate for him to put the man he saw in the frame for murder [the police had the info to make their own enquiries]; and c) his own safety may have been compromised, if the man he saw was indeed the killer?

If and when they had a suspect under arrest, Schwartz could have played a vital role by confirming or denying that this was the man he saw.